As I predicted on the old forum, global temperatures are falling rapidly. The average global temperature is now lower than its 20 year rolling average. Have a look at this graph to see just how much cooler it is so far this year compared to last.

But not only is the earth not getting as warm as some would have us believe, but the mean sea level has actually dropped around 30 cm (1 ft) over the past 150 years. Recent ongoing research at The Isle of the Dead is showing quite conclusively that the level of the the worlds oceans dropped rapidly during the latter part of the 1800s and has held steady ever since.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 24, 2000

Answers

It is nice to hear that it's dropped somewhat. It was just two years ago when a 1200 year record was set.

http://www.discovery.com/news/features/hotplanet/hotplanet.html

Link

The mind-numbing mountain of data collected so far allowed climatologists to declare with confidence that 1998 was indeed a record-breaking year for the planet, the warmest in 1,200 years. From January to November, the Earth's average temperature was 58.4 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.2 degrees warmer than the average mean temperature from 1880-1997. What exactly this means and whether humans are the cause of this latest round of global warming in the planet's stormy climatic history is heavily debated.

-- (Mercury@Discovery.calm), March 24, 2000.

BUT seas are getting hotter

-- Risteard Mac Thomais (uachtaran@ireland.com), March 24, 2000.

Malcome -

You're a fucking idiot. We had the warmest winter on record last year, remember?

Are you a moron or a shill?

-- Fact Checker (just@the.facts), March 24, 2000.

Single data points are worthless in trying to establish climatic trends. You need a lot of data, gathered over years, to even make a guess.

More or less reliable data has been present since the IGY. None from earlier is worth a warm cup of spit. REALLY good data for WORLDWIDE temps goes back only about 15 years.

All the 'hot earth' stuff I have seen relies heavily on data prior to the IGY.

Therefore, I regard their conclusions as worthless.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 24, 2000.

Fact Checker, YOU may have had the warmest winter on record, WE did not. However if you care to look at the graph again you will see that 1998-99 was a very warm year globaly following a strong El-Nino, and now the temperatures are falling as a result of the La-Nina.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 24, 2000.

...and if you average all the temperatures for the year, you can prove there is no Winter. Or Summer. Just one long beautiful day.

-- semper paratus (here_with@my.pals), March 24, 2000.

Wtg, Mal,

Find the few little pieces of evidence that supports your conclusions, ignore everything else. It's Y2K logic all over again. Asshole.

-- (AOSD@@EQ.IOUY), March 24, 2000.

wtg Mal,

Find the few little pieces of evidence that supports your conclusions, ignore everything else. It's Y2K logic all over again. Asshole.

-- (AOSD@@EQ.IOUY),

Dear Asshole, (what a curious way to sign yourself)

Could you please explain what evidence I am ignoring here? All of the available evidence presented so far suggests that there is no long term change in global temperature. In fact the only evidence for such warming is from land based temperature sites that are subject to UHI, and therefore are unreliable indicators of anything.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 24, 2000.

Malcom, you talkin out yo ass man,

Study: World's Oceans Warming

Thursday March 23 7:06 PM ET

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Scientists have discovered a significant, even surprising, warming of the world's oceans over the past 40 years, providing new evidence that computer models may be on target when they predict the Earth's warming.

The broad study of temperature data from the oceans, dating to the 1950s, shows average temperatures have increased more than expected - about half a degree Fahrenheit closer to the surface, and one-tenth of a degree even at depths of up to 10,000 feet.

The findings, reported by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, also may explain a major puzzle in the global warming debate: why computer models have shown more significant warming than actual temperature data.

Global warming skeptics contend that if the computer models exaggerate warming that already has occurred, they should not be trusted to predict future warming. The models have shown higher temperatures than those found in surface and atmospheric readings. But now, the new ocean data may explain the difference, scientists said.

In the NOAA study, scientists for the first time have quantified temperature changes in the world's three major ocean basins and at such depths.

``We've known the oceans could absorb heat, transport it to subsurface depths and isolate it from the atmosphere. Now we see evidence that this is happening,'' said Sydney Levitus, chief of NOAA's Ocean Climate Laboratory and principal author of the study.

Levitus and fellow scientists, who have worked on the project for seven years, examined temperature data from more than 5 million readings at various depths in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans, from 1948 to 1996.

They found the Pacific and Atlantic oceans have been warming since the mid-1950s, and the Indian Ocean since the early 1960s, according to the study published in the journal Science on Friday.

The greatest warming occurred from the surface to a depth of about 900 feet, where the average heat content increased by 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit. Water as far down as 10,000 feet was found to have gained on average 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit.

``This is one of the surprising things. We've found half of the warming occurred below 1,000 feet,'' Levitus said in an interview. ``It brings the climate debate to a new level. We can no longer ignore the ocean.''

The study did not pinpoint the cause of the warming trend over such a lengthy period, but said both natural and human-induced causes were likely.

Levitus discounted short-term climate phenomenon such as the El Nino effect as a significant factor.

``We're seeing a 35-year warming trend and El Nino occurs on a time scale of two to seven years. There's something much more significant occurring than just short-term variability,'' he said.

Other scientists who have argued that the ocean has masked actual global temperature increases called the findings a major breakthrough.

``It confirms that the earth is heating up,'' said Jim Hansen, director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He said a warming of the Earth from greenhouse gas emissions ``would tend to give you a warming of the oceans of that magnitude.''

Hansen is among the earliest proponents of the argument that heat-trapping manmade pollution - greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels - is causing the Earth's warming.

A U.N.-sponsored panel of more than 200 scientists has predicted that average global temperatures will increase 2 degrees to 6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century if current greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed.

Such warming is believed by many scientists to have broad economic and environmental impact including sea level rise as well as changes in agriculture and human health.

Critics of these predictions believe that global mean temperatures have increased only about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years and that computer models used to predict future climate change are not reliable.

While the oceans overall still are becoming warmer, there is evidence that parts of the deep waters of the North Atlantic have begun to cool. ``Which leaves the question, where is the heat going?'' Levitus said.

Likely, it is going to the surface, If so, Levitus suggested the warmer ocean temperatures ``may be an early indicator of the warming of surface, air and sea surface temperatures'' a decade from now.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 24, 2000.

Hawk,

I responded to this article on the other thread where you posted it. But just in case you missed it...

Hawk, This is an interesting article that you cite. Here is the abstract of the original research by Dr Levitus as pubished in Science Magazine.

Warming of the World Ocean Sydney Levitus, * John I. Antonov, Timothy P. Boyer, Cathy Stephens

We quantify the interannual-to-decadal variability of the heat content (mean temperature) of the world ocean from the surface through 3000-meter depth for the period 1948 to 1998. The heat content of the world ocean increased by ~2 W 1023 joules between the mid-1950s and mid-1990s, representing a volume mean warming of 0.060 C. This corresponds to a warming rate of 0.3 watt per meter squared (per unit area of Earth's surface). Substantial changes in heat content occurred in the 300- to 1000-meter layers of each ocean and in depths greater than 1000 meters of the North Atlantic. The global volume mean temperature increase for the 0- to 300-meter layer was 0.310C, corresponding to an increase in heat content for this layer of ~1023 joules between the mid-1950s and mid-1990s. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans have undergone a net warming since the 1950s and the Indian Ocean has warmed since the mid-1960s, although the warming is not monotonic.

A full summary of the findings are available on the NOAA website. with diagrams and charts that I can't reproduce here.

However the AP article that you have reproduced reads more into the article than the research itself indicates. The actual heat quantity change is not inconsistant with normal global fluctuations, and is within the range that can be expected in a post glacial period. What is of interest is the lapse rate of the water temperature, particularly in the 300 - 1000 m range. The other point to be aware of is that the error range is +/- 1.2oK which is +/- 2.1oF. Thus the rate of temperature range is still well within the margin of error.

I would like to see further research into this as it may well give more specific information on the severity of any coming El-Nino/La- Nina events.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 24, 2000.

I've looked at the responses. They seem to fall into two camps. Malcolm and Paul; then the rest.

[to handle this in a very superficial way] there are two questions here.

1. Is the world becoming warmer?

2. Is human activity the cause of the climate change?

1. People seem to take the latest press release as the final statement of the scientific data. [That reflects the fact that this subject is politicized and is not being treated as science]. Based on what I know, the data on global warming has not been settled with the actual temperature data [as Paul and Malcolm have suggested]. Population shifts of plants and animals [in some parts of the world] do suggest a climate warming [not to mention the retreat of those big white ice sheets in the mountains]. Science in this area just points us in the direction. We make best guess judgments based on the available information. Look forward to more conflicting data in the future.

2. I know of no reliable data that tells us whether this change is caused by human activity or results from normal cycles. Just a bunch of statistical correlations. You can't use statistics to prove causation.

Now I add a #3. Does it make any difference? Let us take the worst case. The climate is warming at a rate that is catastrophic. The warming is caused by human activity. What should we do? Well if this is true, the [very expensive] elimination of greenhouse gas will not prevent the change from occurring. These effects would take too long to bleed out of the atmosphere. Therefore, we should spend that amount of money to adapt to the expected changes. My opinion only.

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 25, 2000.

I now realize that this could be read two ways:

Based on what I know, the data on global warming has not been settled with the actual temperature data [as Paul and Malcolm have suggested].

I was agreeing with Paul and Malcolm.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 25, 2000.

Head for high ground, it's only just beginning! Anybody know anyone building a Noah's Ark that has room for another passenger? :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 25, 2000.

SECRET ALASKA EXODUS ALREADY UNDER WAY ..... GET YOUR PREPS NOW!!!

Prime survival retrea... er, vacation cottages in ALASKA 4sale NOW!!! Low, low prices! Sunporch and outdoor jacuzzi!! Date palms and citrus trees!!! (covered jacuzzis make great caches for extra rice and beans for the mild winters!) get yr non-hybrid palms planted now before its too late!

Just call 1-800-MORONS You are almost out of time!!

-- Self Reliance Never Goes Out of Style (especiallywhen@theres.a.buck.init.4me), March 25, 2000.

Oooops.... wrong thread..... Gar-eeeee!! where the heck did you put the ICE AGE file?

-- Disasters R Us (disasters.are@all.interchangeable.anyway), March 25, 2000.

Hawk:

Thanks, for your contribution; but what does this have to do with the subject. These have been calving since people were beginninng to consider NA a place to stay......

Just call 1-800-MORONS You are almost out of time!!

You will understand the reference my friend ;<)....

Best wishes,,,,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X47@aol.com), March 25, 2000.

Hey, why don't you call 1-800-BLOWME, ya friggin jergoff!

That iceberg is 183 miles long, the largest in recorded history. Yeah sure, that happens all the time, like once every 100 million years.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 25, 2000.

Actually Hawk, It is not the largest in recorded history. But it is the largest this decade. A larger one detached from the same spot in 1973, and its not the length that determines its size, but the volume of ice that it contains.

I'll try and find a link to history of the Ross ice shelf for you, and you can see for yourself just how much ice this shelf must shed just to maintain equilibrium.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 25, 2000.

Hawk,

As promised in my last post to this thread, here is the data on the Ross Ice Shelf.

As you can see the Shelf is growing at an average of more than 500 meters per year, therefore it is neccessary for large ice islands to break off from time to time in order to maintain a relatively constant size.

Actually there is so much data here it may be worth a new thread on its own.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 26, 2000.